Howard's vulnerable whatever the timing

Page Tools

Everything the Prime Minister does these days just hands more ammunition to Mark Latham, Michelle Grattan writes.

Just now, John Howard is looking rather like Malcolm Fraser did in early 1983. No doubt Fraser, no friend of Howard these days, is watching with a touch of a wry smile in the Easter Island face.

Fraser won three elections and was prime minister for seven years. By late 1982 his government was wearing out. But Labor's chances were problematic under Bill Hayden.

Early the following year Labor finally got its act together. Bob Hawke took over. Fraser, knowing the acute danger of facing Hawke, rushed to call an election the same day. The rest, as they say, is history.

Howard's won three elections and done eight and a half years. Labor's new leader has had rather longer to blood himself. And, while they may share some characteristics, he's no Bob Hawke. Howard's chances of defeating Mark Latham are always going to be better than Fraser's prospects of vanquishing the leader voters saw as the quintessential Aussie. But we're seeing a long-time PM looking uncomfortable against an opponent who has electoral appeal.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Try as he might, Howard can't get traction. Instead of being dominating the battle, he keeps being pushed against the wall (it happened even when Latham was out of action in hospital).

Ten days ago Howard was defiantly making the bold prediction that there would be another "children overboard" Senate inquiry and of course it would find him "guilty" because it would be just a political fix.

Over the past few days he's been dithering about whether to go immediately to the polls to avoid Parliament having such an inquiry.

Now Howard has damaged himself by trying to go on the offensive against former ministerial adviser Mike Scrafton, who says that three days before the 2001 election he told the PM the "children overboard" story was wrong.

Scrafton admitted he did not reveal this to the post-election civilian inquiry into the affair, a point the Government has used against him.

Howard presumably reasoned that if Scrafton had also failed to say this to the separate military inquiry, that would throw further doubt on his story.

Howard asked for the men who conducted that military inquiry, Major-General Roger Powell and Commander Michael Noonan, to be quizzed on what Scrafton told them.

Oops. In trying to trip up Scrafton, Howard took a fall himself. Unfortunately for Howard, Scrafton did give his more comprehensive story to the military inquiry.

So the replies Howard got from Major General Powell and his officer were dynamite. As Howard says, they don't directly confirm the content of the phone calls between Scrafton and himself. But their testimony is strong circumstantial evidence and, let's be frank, more compelling than the statements produced by the PM's staff backing his story.

Having received the material, Howard had little choice but to release it publicly on Friday. For it to leak during the campaign would be a fresh disaster.

Howard finds himself in the extraordinary situation that whatever he does, he seems to hand ammunition to Latham.

A caveat: things change quickly. Not long ago, Latham seemed to be struggling.

But Howard is carrying more baggage, and has been making some poor judgments.

One strange move was to issue his counter-dossier to Labor's document of last weekend that listed 27 alleged lies and misleadings. He just gave publicity to Labor's allegations.

By the end of last week, Howard found himself jammed. Should he call the election this weekend or allow Parliament to return?

It's a measure of the Government's lack of confidence that it sees Parliament as a negative, rather than relishing the opportunity to make its strong case on the economy and air its new financial help for older people with private health insurance.

But avoiding Parliament carried problems, too. The latest allegations would mean that wherever the campaign went, it would start on Labor's ground of a prime minister with diminished credibility and too afraid to venture into the Parliament of which he has so often been master.

And the dates presented problems. The closest election date, October 2, is the rugby league grand final weekend - not impossible, because the match is Sunday night, but far from ideal. If the election were called today for October 9, it would mean a six-week campaign - all right if Howard were in form to wear Latham down, but dangerous when Latham looked to be the one doing well.

The Liberal strategists on Friday were still taking soundings, as the PM did his duties on the campaign trail in Tasmania, doling out dollars and promising more later. Like a travelling potentate, the PM goes nowhere without a bag of money from which to dispense largesse.

Yesterday both sides of politics waited on tenterhooks for his decision about what he sees as in his best interests.

But just firing the starter's gun, whether today or in a week, won't blow away the curse of "children overboard".

"The Australian public are saying to me that they are fed up with this issue," Howard says. But the "link" is to the "truth in politics" issue and that one is harder to shrug off. Labor frontbencher Julia Gillard put the standard Opposition line on Friday: "If he's lied about this what else is he lying about and what will he lie about in the coming election campaign?"

Howard says people are "bored" with children overboard, which is "ancient history". While true, this is also bluff, a variation on the tactic that the PM used in 2001 to divert the media.

It would be the ultimate irony if we in the media first failed to get to the truth of "children overboard" last election campaign and then, having now had it thrust in our collective faces by Scafton, swallowed the PM's line that the issue was old news.

The notion of a "statute of limitation" on the truth in politics is a dangerous slippery slope.

The letters from the military that Howard released carry another salutory message. Details of what was allegedly said to the PM were fully spelled out to an official inquiry, but didn't see the light of day.

It's not new to have important but embarrassing "truths" hidden at election time. In 1983 Howard was briefed by Treasury about a looming $9 billion deficit. He told Fraser, and wanted him to get this uncomfortable "truth" out. Fraser declined. After the election loss, Howard, as the one still in politics, wore the pain of that concealment for years.